[Football] Do we play good football / attractive to watch ?

[keaton]

Far, far better than the last dire days of the Hughton regime, I know we are in their half but lets pass it back to Lewis and he can give it to the Goalkeeper and we can start again.

Sorry I'm confused, are you saying we did that Hughton and we're not doing it under Potter? I would say that has hugely increased under Potter. Most throw ins and free kicks seem to end up back with the keeper now

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

Not a myth at all. Apart from last night's more pragmatic performance we have been very watchable this season. I've got used to us moving it from box to box with grace and skill before fluffing our lines in the 18yard box. I've enjoyed our performances this season we are a fun watch. Just a shame we have trouble hitting the proverbial cows bottom with a banjo.

Watchable indeed but very little in football is more pleasurable than seeing the ball hit the opposition's net.

 

[veuve]

Best passing team in the division, a joy to watch need a striker though.

 

[Badger Boy]

Under Potter;

Played 51, Won 11, Drew 19, Lost 21, goals scored 54, goals conceded 75 (-21 GD), Points 52.

19/20 - 38 9 14 15 39 54 −15 41
20/21 - 13 2 5 6 15 21 −6 11

That is not good football. Pretty, perhaps. But good football is winning football.

 

[Justice]

Stick with it... I look at Soton with regard to how things will pan out hopefully.

I am a huge Potter fan.

Wouldn’t say they are a possession based side, normally quite direct with much better players and a terrific goal scorer. The problem is would we ever sign an Ings? More likely to end up with some bum from Holland... oh

 

[Napper]

Interesting views. Started the thread to see. We are attractive to a point but it is the premier league not the 2nd or 3rd tier. Pretty much all the sides can play some good football in spells. Would a neutral be tuning into us over a say Leeds. I don't think so personally.

Compared to end of the Hughton reign then yes much better to watch but that's chalk and cheese.

It's attractive at times but we have come from a very low bar

 

[big nuts]

Under Potter;

Played 51, Won 11, Drew 19, Lost 21, goals scored 54, goals conceded 75 (-21 GD), Points 52.

19/20 - 38 9 14 15 39 54 −15 41
20/21 - 13 2 5 6 15 21 −6 11

That is not good football. Pretty, perhaps. But good football is winning football.

That’s a satisfactory return when rebuilding an ageing squad, bringing in youth and lowering the average age.

As part of a 5 year plan we should expect to see the points per game return start to increase next season, but for now a point per game is probably a realistic benchmark for us still.

 

[boik]

Under Potter;

Played 51, Won 11, Drew 19, Lost 21, goals scored 54, goals conceded 75 (-21 GD), Points 52.

19/20 - 38 9 14 15 39 54 −15 41
20/21 - 13 2 5 6 15 21 −6 11

That is not good football. Pretty, perhaps. But good football is winning football.

So you think that good music is that which tops the charts maybe.

Good football and winning football are 2 different things. Mourinho plays winning football, but it's sh!t to watch. Not good football at all.

 

[giveusfalmerplease]

i remember a commentator during the Liverpool match comment that someone watching this match who knew nothing about either team other than it was champions versus relegation candidates would have had Brighton as the champions because of the free flowing football they played in the first half.

 

[Seagull1989]

The football is much better than under the last days of Hughton but we are lacking a cutting edge.

Goals are a problem though. We have only scored 2, both penalties, in the last 4 games. Scoring from open play is an issue but so is scoring from set pieces.

 

[Goldstone1976]

For the first few games of this season we played some of the best box to box stuff I've ever seen from us for 70 minutes a game, but usually failed to score (with a couple of notable exceptions). Against Fulham, the 70 minutes dropped to 20, and we still failed to score.

However, we are still *only* 3 points behind [MENTION=3734]Giraffe[/MENTION]'s tracker, so all is not lost - but I'm not seeing much in the way of 'progress'.

 

[Stumpy Tim]

We play excellent football, and it´s much better than the Premier League football we were playing under Hughton. I would even argue that we do have a cutting edge, though it could improve. What we are lacking is the ability to put the ball in the goal, and stop conceding from set pieces. Last night Welbeck missed his 4th or 5th clear chance since he joined us, Webster hit the bar, we had a goal (correctly, though unluckily) disallowed, Dunk was unlucky with his double effort and there were plenty of other shooting opportunities that we fluffed. So really, cutting edge isn´t the problem. In short, we are excellent everywhere apart from the two boxes.

Sanchez made a difference at one end last night, and getting a better striker (or Maupay finding his form again) would make a big difference at the other end

 

[Badger Boy]

That’s a satisfactory return when rebuilding an ageing squad, bringing in youth and lowering the average age.

As part of a 5 year plan we should expect to see the points per game return start to increase next season, but for now a point per game is probably a realistic benchmark for us still.

I don't think it is satisfactory. I think it's below par. I agree that the squad building and development has improved, there is a pathway for young players into the team and our moves in the transfer market point to a longer term strategy. I give credit to Potter for using younger players, that was his brief and he's doing it.

I don't believe the record on the pitch is better than it was/would have been under Hughton, however. I think the most important part of the 5 year plan is to improve the results in line with the performances (which is a personal preference, rather than a quantitative statistic) and that's the part Potter isn't currently doing. Hughton had 2 years, Potter should get at least the same and we'll see where we are at the end of the season.

Things would have to really get away from us for me to change my stance, I don't like this manager but he should have the full season, as Hughton did. And he can be fairly judged once 38 games are played.

So you think that good music is that which tops the charts maybe.

Good football and winning football are 2 different things. Mourinho plays winning football, but it's sh!t to watch. Not good football at all.

No, I like what I like but when making a factual point it's wiser to use facts and statistics. Mourinho's Tottenham are actually quite good in my opinion. Defensive, yes - but the team functions well and is scoring plenty of goals. Very unlucky not to win at Liverpool last night, let alone losing the game.

 

[SEWDONIM]

Most pundits say we play attractive football without a cutting edge, seems fair.

A poundland Man City.

I like how we play until we get into the box; we over complicate things in the box. There really ever looks like an attacking overload, more wiggle through a body of players* to slot it in.




*Connolly to fall over at a slight touch.

 

[jcdenton08]

What we do is actually extremely simple.

We play 3-5-2, as we all know.

Attacking:

The aim is to work it into the central attacking midfield position (usually Lallana), who drifts either right or left of their deepest central midfielder. He then looks into the channel behind the full back for either Lamptey, or March - as shown here:



Our problem, as with most teams playing 3-5-2 is working the ball into this position to begin with. We have a philosophy of playing from the back under Potter.

First of all, the ball is passed to one of three centre backs, whose attacking aim is to get the ball into either of the two holding midfielders. Namely Bissouma or Alzate/Groß recently. Their aim is one of two things - either look wide for a wing back who is moving ahead of them past the halfway line (pass appreciation - attacking momentum moving forward, allowing them to gain yards territorially in central midfield up the pitch while the team keep possession), or if they have time to turn, try and find the attacking midfielder in the space shown above. If this doesn't work, which is most of the time, we recycle and pass back to the centre backs and eventually the keeper. This is our first problem.

We are playing one attacking midfielder and two strikers. The two strikers break off to play on the shoulder of the two centre-backs taking them out of the game, leaving one forward passing option. Essentially attacking midfielder versus two central midfielders, plus potentially a holding midfielder. He simply does not have the space to receive the ball, so the ball is recycled (usually backwards) to the centre-backs, then keeper and repeat.

We have an alternate strategy, which has led to some success, particularly early on when it was fresh.

It's the long cross-field ball to Lamptey. In this variation, we consciously drag the opposition across to our left wing back position by playing keep ball, moving to that area of the pitch - their right. Lamptey meanwhile hugs tight to the right touchline and uses his pace to try and get in behind. This has been very effective due to the sheer pace Lamptey has - and was not a tactic utilised when he was suspended as Veltman cannot offer that same pace.

As the game progresses, the idea is that the opposition's attacking press tires - which it often does. Midway through the second half, we play considerably more direct in order to bypass an increasingly leggy opposition midfield. These balls are usually played by Dunk and Webster in the outside left channel towards the striker playing on the left side.

Those are our attacking tactics.


Defensive:

The two strikers do their best to press the defence. March and Lamptey press high, particularly Lamptey, while Bissouma drops deeper and Lallana floats in the centre. The spare left-sided central midfielder Groß/Alzate) picks up their central midfielder/attacking midfielder who is playing in the hole. If the ball is played long, the central defender of the trio (Dunk) comes forward for the header/press and the two centre backs alongside him left and right squeeze in together to make a pair so there is cover.

If I had access to the full 90 minutes I could take more screenshots demonstrating the above, but I don't, so I can't.

 

[blue-shifted]

I don't think it is satisfactory. I think it's below par. I agree that the squad building and development has improved, there is a pathway for young players into the team and our moves in the transfer market point to a longer term strategy. I give credit to Potter for using younger players, that was his brief and he's doing it.

I don't believe the record on the pitch is better than it was/would have been under Hughton, however. I think the most important part of the 5 year plan is to improve the results in line with the performances (which is a personal preference, rather than a quantitative statistic) and that's the part Potter isn't currently doing. Hughton had 2 years, Potter should get at least the same and we'll see where we are at the end of the season.

Things would have to really get away from us for me to change my stance, I don't like this manager but he should have the full season, as Hughton did. And he can be fairly judged once 38 games are played.



No, I like what I like but when making a factual point it's wiser to use facts and statistics. Mourinho's Tottenham are actually quite good in my opinion. Defensive, yes - but the team functions well and is scoring plenty of goals. Very unlucky not to win at Liverpool last night, let alone losing the game.

By jove, you hit on the solution. Buy Kane and Son. Let the club know about this solution straight away in case they've not thought about it

 

[blue-shifted]

Last night was the least flowing we've been. But Craven Cottage has a postage stamp of a pitch so it's really not a fair time to be bringing up the question.

We'll play better football against Sheffiled Utd. Not saying we'll win.

 

[jcdenton08]

Does anyone want to critique my assessment - maybe I'm wrong?

 

[blue-shifted]

Does anyone want to critique my assessment - maybe I'm wrong?

It's complete bollocks mate .......

Nah only joking, the thing is, there's no right or wrong all opinions.

Anything with still is always more interesting

 

[JBizzle]

Mourinho's Tottenham are actually quite good in my opinion. Defensive, yes - but the team functions well and is scoring plenty of goals. Very unlucky not to win at Liverpool last night, let alone losing the game.

You'd hope they would be quite good with one of the top 3 managers in the world and two strikers whos combined value is likely more than £300m. How would you say you get to Tottenham's level without having everything Tottenham have in their locker?